Ok America.. You have now in writing from our top legal process- A NEW TAX!!!! As a small franchise business who creates 45 jobs every time we open a new location and over 1,300 created jobs over the last 7 years.... I will assure we stop this creation until I and my system can understand the impact of this NEW TAX! America- Spin how you want to.... its a NEW TAX define by the courts. So, when you guys looking for jobs have 70% of the job creators (small business) in our USA NOT hiring... understand, the 70% will not change their American dream- just not offer possibly yours so to fund this NEW TAX. "IT is what it is"!!! Spin it how you want or educate yourself on the actual Act which this administration shoved down Americas throat.... As a registered Independent, I am going to vote Republican November in hopes they repeal this NEW TAX.!!! The sad thing is.... 98% of my fellow Americans have never read the document available on line to fully understand this Health Care Act and its hidden agenda... I suggest you vote with facts in hand.... Read a little or in this case 1,600 pages.

11:32 am June 28, 2012

Wahhhhh wrote:

Real America, tighten up the strap on your Depends, take a pill, and spare the rest of us your immature diatribe...

12:55 pm June 28, 2012

Good point wrote:

While I am having trouble signifying your useless comment with a response - one could also argue that Americans without insurance should tighten up their bootstraps and pay their own coverage. Healthcare is a luxury, not a right.

12:57 pm June 28, 2012

Edit wrote:

Dignifying*

1:00 pm June 28, 2012

Rex Berg wrote:

So is it a tax or not? The first part is held up because the payment is classified as a "penalty" and NOT a "tax", but the overall ruling is that the penalty is in fact a form of a tax? Someone please explain.

1:10 pm June 28, 2012

MDS wrote:

This is only a tax in newspeak language - sophistry is what Scalia called this and he was right.

The excuse that we tax cigarettes to curtail behavior is no parallel. This would be the equivalent of taxing for NOT smoking cigarettes.

Roberts is a supreme disappointment.

1:11 pm June 28, 2012

Nick wrote:

@Rex Berg: TAX, since penalty for not buying private insurance coverage is 2.5% of your income

1:17 pm June 28, 2012

realist wrote:

So are speeding fines and other non-criminal assessments now a tax?

1:18 pm June 28, 2012

@MDS wrote:

You're right Nobody forces someone to buy cigarettes.

1:29 pm June 28, 2012

MS Gal wrote:

I think all of you would have a different outlook on it if you were in my poisition. Reader's digest version...55 year old diagnosed with MS..totally disabled..worked all my life since I was 18 years old..paid my taxes..was a single parent and never collected anything from the "System". Can't afford to purchase insurance due to cost of $600 per month..or just flat out discriminated against because of "Pre-Exisiting Condition"! All of you better have a real hefty savings account or something to fall back on because you never know what tommorrow will bring..

1:37 pm June 28, 2012

MS Gal wrote:

Oh and just an FYI..couldn't even qualify for Medicaid in the state that I live in! They say I make too much money on SSDI

1:39 pm June 28, 2012

The Middle Class wrote:

We have been told repeatedly by the President that there will not be new taxes or a tax increase levied on the middle class. Members of the Obama administration argue that the health insurance mandate is a tax and the Supreme Court agrees.

1:50 pm June 28, 2012

Just produce more doctors wrote:

Get rid of AMA lobby
increase number of doctors by 2.
not just valedictorians but allow salutatorians to become a doctor too....plenty of smart people in America. No real difference in practice between IQ 145 and IQ 135

American doctors are not all that except for very few. GET RID OF DOCTORS UNIONS!!!

DENTIST UNIONS ARE NEXT!

1:50 pm June 28, 2012

MS Gal wrote:

Wow...I wrote a post on here about "Real Life" and it was deleted? Would someone plz tell me why?

1:52 pm June 28, 2012

MS Gal wrote:

Ok..now it is back. Thank you

2:18 pm June 28, 2012

sadday wrote:

Roberts is a coward. I believe he gave up his core beliefs and found a way to NOT overturn the mandate. He decided to rename the mandate as a tax and therefore his legacy will be better served. He took the easy way out rather than do the right thing under the consitution. The man is despicable.

So call it what you want in the sales pitch. Sell it as a horse and let the buyer find out it is a tax. Worked this time! What a game!

2:59 pm June 28, 2012

Pennsylvania Farmer wrote:

So it isn't a tax for the Anti-Injection Act, but is for the rest? A decision only a lawyer could love.

3:23 pm June 28, 2012

Tim Kelly wrote:

Even the Supreme Court makes mistakes as shown here. Roberts should be ashamed of his overtly liberal stance. The Supreme Court should not be political but interpret the laws under the Constitution. That was not done here. To say Congress can penalize citizens for not doing what we do not want to do is horrible law. But remember, Plessey v. Ferguson found that it was ok to discriminate provided that the discriminatory instruments were "equal" albeit "separate.". The dissenting opinion with prescience and courage argued "separate but equal is inherently unequal." 100 years later the Court reversed itself on the Plessey dissenting logic when it started by quoting the "separate but equal is inherently unequal" language. I pray this ruling doesn't take 100 years before future Justices realize and courageously reverse this insane ruling. America fought Britian in large part over the tyranny forced upon us. This ruling similarly authorizes our very own government to force us to do what it deems right or face a penalty. Not ruling using the Commerce Clause is anathema to the tenets this Country was founded on. The Citizens of this wonderful country must act to establish a Congress that works for US not us for THEM. Overthrow this law by electing those that will further this great experiment... Not alter our course in a way that forces us to become a Socialist country!

4:42 pm June 28, 2012

Kat wrote:

@MS Gal,

I'm so sorry about your troubles. I understand that you've fallen on hard times and you are having trouble affording all the things you want and health insurance. But does that give you the right to use government to steal from others in order to provide what you want for yourself?

There are other ways. Before the growth of the welfare state charities more nimbly and more efficiently provided for hard cases. The very state you think is providing you a benefit created the mess that makes your health care so much less affordable now. Thank insurance regulators (the state) for laws that favour insurers over their customers by preventing competition and loading them with mandates that you, of course, must pay for. Meanwhile, your options as a consumer are severely limited by the very same state. Why look to the cause of your problems for a solution?

Finally, health insurance is not health care. I assume it is health care, not meaningless insurance that you're after. NOTHING in this legislation forces anyone to provide any actual health care at anything like an affordable rate (note that "affordable" is so subjective as to be meaningless). You will find that you live in a more poor country with no access to the care you need - unless you can pay out of pocket. And people will have less to give to charity that might pay for your care as they will be forced to pay ever increasing insurance rates to cover the cost of these new mandates. As a result, you are worse off than you were before and though you do not feel it now, I'm afraid you'll remember my words in a few years time.

5:21 pm June 28, 2012

johnr5515 wrote:

Just because this poor woman can't afford her health care premiums and she has MS, 300+ Million people have to have their coverage changed. I would think we could help her without changing everything.

6:47 pm June 28, 2012

A Proud Liberal wrote:

Note to MS Gal:
If you qualify for Social Security Disability payments, you should qualify for Medicare. Please check it out.
To the rest of you whiners, taxing is a legitimate function of government, get over it. To the so-called small business owner, it is an individual mandate, if you have been exploiting your employees by not offering health insurance, it is time to get out of the slavery business.
Government mandated insurance has a long history back to the Founding Fathers. All states require car insurance, requiring health insurance on humans seems even more essential, it provides for the General Welfare. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

7:14 pm June 28, 2012

@Kat wrote:

I wonder how many people posting here have insurance through their emploer? These people would instantly change their tune if the had to pay over $15,000 a year for a family policy that really doen't pay for everything.

And for many of those that think they have insurance, try using it. You might be in for a real shock.

7:47 pm June 28, 2012

Kat wrote:

@proud liberal,

First of all, just because it is a tax does not mean it's a constitutional tax. Second, you should learn what the word "exploitation" means. All employees have the freedom to work for whomever they want. It's pretty hard to "exploit" people who can quit. Also, healthcare costs money. If the small firm offers insurance, it will have to reduce the amount it pays employees in money income. Third, slavery is not determined by pay rate or perqs offered or not offered. Seriously, this is basic stuff. Fourth, while all states require car insurance, no state requires you to buy a car. You can avoid buying insurance by not buying a vehicle. There is no way to avoid paying the mandate unless you plan to kill yourself. Fifth, NOWHERE was the general welfare argument made by anybody in this case. It's not a general welfare issue. And finally, health insurance is neither essential nor is it healthcare. The mandate means everyone has insurance. It does not mandate the insurance pay for anything that you in the United States would recognize as healthcare.

Are all liberals as ignorant as you or are you an exception? Whatever the case, this is nothing to be proud of.

7:55 pm June 28, 2012

Kat wrote:

"I wonder how many people posting here have insurance through their emploer?....."

The problem with health insurance is that it's not insurance. It's insulation from health care costs. And false insulation at that. This has always seemed very strange to me. We expect to pay for our own house, our own car, our own food, our own clothing, etc. Yet, when it comes to health care, we are outraged when we are faced with paying for this particular good ourselves.

One of the many problems, of course, is that the cost of healthcare has been greatly artificially increased by government regulation, preferential tax treatments and medicare/medicaid (which not only shift the costs to people not covered by either but also waste enormous amounts of money via fraud).

I long ago started negotiating with my doctors and paying out of pocket. I have only catastrophe insurance. And that's what insurance is. Health care providers competing for business are willing to lower price. Just look at two areas that are not covered by insurance - Lasik eye surgery and plastic surgery. In both cases, prices have dropped dramatically while safety and results have improved dramatically. The third party payer system is creating plenty of problems, makes health care less affordable and solves nothing.

12:22 am June 29, 2012

CeeNee wrote:

I for one am really glad the Health Care was held up by the Supreme Court. So many people who are against this are the ones who can actually afford the coverage but would rather spend their money on smoking, drinking, have big trucks, snow mobiles, etc. So how fair is it that the rest of us are responsible enough to have insurance and have worked hard all our lives. Then just when we need that insurance the most the insurance companies pull it out from under us. This Health Care will put major restrictions on the unfair practices these companies are getting away with. And it also gives us, the consumer, more power to
keep our insurance rather than let them cancel a policy you have paid on but when you need it the most it isn't there. I am so glad that young men and women can stay on their parents policy until 26 as a lot of them really need that while going to college.

7:41 am August 4, 2012

josey jasen wrote:

Hey would you mind letting me know which webhost you’re utilizing? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different web browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most. Can you suggest a good internet hosting provider at a honest price? Thank you,I appreciate it!http://www.policymantra.com/

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

Plaintiffs' lawyers dodged a bullet last year when the U.S. Supreme Court spared a quarter-century-old precedent that had served as the legal linchpin of the modern investor class-action case. Despite that win, a new report suggests that securities class actions have lost some of their firepower.

In a week in which images of Prophet Muhammad were connected to acts of terror and defiant expressions of freedom, a sculpture of the prophet of Islam inside the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn little notice.

The salacious allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz that surfaced in a federal lawsuit involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have generated international attention. Drawing less coverage is the lawsuit itself -- a case with the potential to expand the rights of crime victims during federal investigations.